Thoughts from the Usher Podium: The Dark Knight Trilogy Analysis Part 1

No doubt the Dark Knight Trilogy will go into the annuls of movie history as one of the definitive movie franchises ever created; certainly one of the best in the first part of the 21st century. With its dark, naturalistic tones, its complex characters and its timeless source material, generations to come will revel in it's glory much like they did with Star Wars. Its the rare beast that appeases huge populous audiences and those who imposed themselves as the guardians of good cultural taste i.e. critics, film historians, academics and the like.

But what makes the trilogy so timeless and important doesn't only depend on it's ability to entertain. There is something much more universal that resonates underneath. A point of view that needs to be given pause and contemplation beyond simply saying it was a good set of flicks. There is a well constructed framework that in some cases is purposely put there by the creators and in some cases subconsciously placed there because it operates within the confines of a collective worldview. This three part analysis aims to put the Dark Knight Trilogy into a historical context to reveal its ultimate political ends and its Judeo-Christian roots. I posit that the Dark Knight Trilogy, has a politically authoritarian bent and is religiously conservative.

A disclaimer: just because I believe these opinions, themes and subtexts exist doesn't mean I endorse them. I only think its neat to contemplate and fascinating to find. If you read these articles and ultimately think the Dark Knight Trilogy endorses your worldview or conflicts with it, keep in mind they're still just movies.

Batman Begins starts with our hero, a young Bruce Wayne falling down a well on his family's estate. There he faces an imprinted fear of bats immediately followed by his father Thomas Wayne imparting the only known lesson he'll give before his untimely death. "Why do we fall, Bruce? So we can learn to pick ourselves up." Now some may find direct correlation to that message and the conservative mantra of "picking yourself up by your bootstraps" but Thomas Wayne's character is a little more nuanced than that. On the way to the family's fated final curtain, they take the Gotham mass transit system where Thomas is revealed to be more attuned to Andrew Carnegie's "Gospel of Wealth" than the allure of a laisse faire economic philosophy. During Bruce's time with the League of Shadows Ducard explains Thomas was one of the "do-gooders" who insured the League's plan to use "economics" as a means of destroying Gotham didn't work.

When the Waynes are dispatched and Bruce disappears he's inducted into the League of Shadows and adopts a second more totalitarian father figure, the inscrutable Ducard. While training, he overcomes his fears and ultimately learns the necessary skills to become the Batman. Then comes the pivotal point when Bruce rejects Ducard's ultimate ends i.e. destroying Gotham for the greater good. Bruce refuses to believe Gotham is beyond saving and when back with Alfred (a more motherly figure in that his love is unconditional) He concocts the idea for the Batman. Yet notice while Bruce rejects the ends of the League of Shadows he does not deny the usefulness of their means. While the League of Shadows aims for dubious ends their philosophy is succinct. They serve as a check to the powerful, preaching a philosophy similar to Gore Vidal only with an authoritarian streak reminiscent of German Fascism. They believe history is cyclical and the only way to ensure humanity marches towards progress is to mix the pot. Now who serves to be a check on them is a concern that ultimately has their philosophy buckle under scrutiny but mixing the pot to the point of revolution or renaissance is not altogether a bad thing. They're just more goose-steppers than they are Occupy Wall Street.

Noam Chomsky wants you to kill and eat babies!!!

Batman is mean't to be a symbol revered by the city whist being a symbol of fear and order for Gotham's criminal class. Fear is the ultimate force that informs Bruce's world and thus he still holds to the identity of the League. When Bruce adopts the Batman as a persona some claim he channels Nietche's ubermensch; a man above and beyond man; but I would reject such didactic simplicity. Bruce is not creating a moral philosophy based on This-worldliness. He rejects his father's philanthropy for a more solipsistic approach to crime solving. An approach that rejects nuance and attempts to stop crime at its supposed source. During Bruce's first outing as Batman he corners Carmine Falcone, the only crime lord in Gotham we as the audience have met and the only crime lord Bruce seems to know. The fact that Falcone's men killed Joe Chill, the man who killed Bruce's parents before he could is not mentioned but hangs in the theater like a meal best served cold.

Later replaced by better actress...then killed off.

Falcone is ultimately deemed unfit for trial over the objection by the DA office which includes Bruce's longtime friend and love interest Rachel Dawes. It is then that we come face to face with our primary villain, Scarecrow aka Dr. Jonathan Crane. His plan is to release an air-born fear-inducing hallucinogen into the Gotham water supply. Crane is mean't to be a foil to Bruce and Batman. Like Bruce, Crane has an alias and uses his intelligence and fear to achieve his goals. Furthermore both of their goals up until this point are nebulous. One's stated goal is to stop crime yet he has way better means of achieving it while the other is revealed to work with the League of Shadows. But what does Crane get out of his dealings with them? Money, is he insane? Is he a full-fledged member of the League and therefore wants to destroy Gotham because it represents everything evil and bad? His motives are never truly addressed.

What is clear is if Scarecrow gets his way Gotham will descend into chaos, but how? The drug can only be inhaled not drunken. We're reintroduced to Ducard now revealed to be Ra's al Ghul and the last piece of the puzzle is dropped. The microwave emitter stolen by Wayne Enterprises earlier in the film will be used to evaporate the water in the mains and release the hallucinogen into the air where it can be inhaled by its victims. Much like Hannibal, al Ghul uses "all roads lead to Rome" as a mode in his conquest. The mass transit system that leads directly to Wayne Tower and conveniently to the entire city's water supply will be used against Gotham. Due to widespread corruption and ineffectiveness of the city the only people aware and/or able to do anything about al Ghul's plan are Sgt. Gordon, Rachel Dawes and Batman.

...and lo, the lord saith, "Get off my plane!"

Now let's talk about Sgt. Gordon for a moment. In order to arrest Falcone and his brood, Batman enlists the help of the only honest cop he knows and Gordon becomes a prophet of sorts preaching the gospel of Batman. A gospel that preaches order through fear. He makes the initial arrest of Falcone and is rewarded with the only vial of antidote for the hallucinogen not meant for mass production. Therefore he raises above the law, able to perform certain functions such as helping Batman in the climactic final battle and the ceremonial lighting of the Bat-signal at the end of the movie. Yet at this point in the trilogy we are in the prenatal stages of Christian dogma. Most characters identify with one "God" over many. Falcone: money, Rachel: justice, Scarecrow: fear etc. Through Batman and his disciple Sgt. Gordon Gotham unites under one banner, one mantra and that is order. Through order there is salvation, through order all good things come. Yet order through fear is not enough as later installments will highlight. Batman is less a Christ-like figure than he is an old testament prophet, forcefully proclaiming "Do this and you will live, for I fear God" Genesis 42:18.

In the climactic battle for the heart and soul of Gotham, Bruce destroys the images of both of his father figures in one cathartic action-piece. He derails his biological father's rapid transit system while "refusing to save" Ducard. Bruce is no longer ascribes to his father's humanistic economic philosophy or Ducard's "serve the greater good" mentality. He instead does the opposite of both. His billionaire playboy persona and his solipsistic Batman persona both belie a selfish streak. Bruce Wayne or rather "Bruce Wayne" doesn't care about poor people and while the comics highlight the Wayne Research Institute, The Thomas Wayne Foundation and the Martha Wayne Foundation as altruistic ventures, none are addressed in the world of The Dark Knight. Meanwhile Batman continues to utilize the tool of fear to keep denizens of Gotham in check. A fear-mongering creature now with the unofficial endorsement of the Gotham PD. No wonder Rachel ultimately rebuffs his advances. It is only in The Dark Knight that order through fear is replaced by order through sacrifice. Whose sacrifice remains to be seen.

Though I'll give you a big freakin' clue

Kingman: The Secret Service

Year: 2014
Genre: Action/Spy Film
Director: Matthew Vaughn
Stars: Colin Firth, Taron Egerton, Samuel L. Jackson, Michael Caine, Mark Strong, Mark Hamill, Sofia Boutella

How do you parody something that already parodies itself? James Bond boasts 23 cannon films. 25 if you include David Niven's Casino Royale (1967) and Sean Connery's remake of Thunderball (1965), Never Say Never Again (1983). Those who venture to see the whole series will no doubt understand just how far-fetched and outlandish the world of James Bond is. Crazy megalomaniacal villains, convenient gadgets, patronizing (at best) treatment of women; Maybe Daniel Craig's severe take as 007 has made audiences forget just how silly the series had gotten over the years.

Does Spike Lee have to slap a bitch?

Kingman: The Secret Service is the story of a British hood named Eggsy (Taron Egerton) who is given the chance to prove his mettle as a member of an elite secret service organization. Colin Firth plays his mentor (codename: Galahad) because years ago Eggsy's father saved his life during a mission. While Eggsy is in training, an eccentric tech billionaire (Samuel L. Jackson) is in the final stages of his nefarious plan to stop global warming. Can the Kingmen stop him before he submerges the world in chaos?

Critics are calling this movie a cheeky send up of the spy film genre. "Stylish, subversive and above all fun..." says the rottentomatoes.com banner over a 74% critic score. I must have missed something. Stylish? I suppose if you think the interiors of an old-timey tailor shop mixed with the interiors of Professor Xavier's School is stylish. Subversive? Does this movie subvert conventions? No it embraces them. Fun? Well, if your definition of fun is a church full of innocent people getting slaughtered while "Free Bird" plays in the background then maybe you should re-examine your life.

Pictured: Much better movie

Now I'm not saying that gratuitous amounts of violence can't be fun. Who can't see a movie like Shoot'Em Up (2007) without a sense of awe an infectious giggling. But in that movie there was a premium on innocence. Those not directly related to the plot were omitted from the bloodletting and the one innocent in the film (the baby) was the one thing Clive Owen was protecting. The point driven home in Kingmen is there is no innocence. By virtue of being alive (and living in London, Rio or Kentucky) you're a participant in the villains endgame and an "entertaining" pawn in the story.

But hey, the good guys succeed in the end right? Well they do but the villain convinced nearly every head of state to go with his plan so realistically the world would still descend into chaos anyway. And what of our heroes? An organization that is old-money-rich, white, and British with one co-opted hood laying the kill stroke. Meanwhile the conspiracy they stop is diverse, largely new money and Samuel L. himself is black and if the medallion around his neck is to be believed, Muslim.

Each scene that doesn't involve gratuitous violence is rushed at the expense of the actors humanizing their characters. Firth sits in an office full of Sun headlines and explains that each headline represents a day he accomplished a mission for the Kingmen and the world never noticed. Egerton leaves his mother's house by taking a moment to comfort his little baby sister. These are moments that could have shown emotional resonance but were undermined by the villain making an appearance and Egerton escaping baddies with parkour respectively. Why get to know the characters at all when we could briskly move onto the next martial-arts set piece.

All in all, Kingman is an overloaded male fantasy with a fatalistic view of human behavior and an insultingly out of touch, Anglos-know-best mentality. The action, while occasionally cool to look at, can't hide its hatred filled heart and its attempts at parody are at the very most half-assed. Yet despite all this, I'm taken aback by the movie's critical success and the formation of a cult following. What is society coming to when we celebrate the demise of hundreds with computer chips in their neck and laugh at the potential deaths of billions who only wanted free cellphone service.

Final Grade: F

Thoughts from the Usher Podium: 10 Movies Better Than 50 Shades of Grey

First let me make a confession; I have not seen 50 Shades of Grey (2015), nor have I read the book. I can only judge based on the reviews from professional reviewers, those in my circle of influence who actually saw it and cultural talking-heads who cry foul at its supposed rapey-ness. If I may I would like to side step the chorus of complaints with the movie and instead focus on what I know for sure: Thematically, there are elements of sado-masochism. Its an unconventional love story and it initially started as Twilight fan-fiction. So until I get a chance to see the film (which I refuse to pay money for but rest assured I will see it), this is for those who did see it and feel disappointed. This is for the people who went to see it because their base curiosity brought them to the theater and instead of being rewarded with prurient kink got mindless dreck. Here is a list of movies with similar themes and circumstances that are (probably) a whole lot better:

10. Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down! (1989)
A strapping, young and certifiable Antonio Banderas plays a recent patient of a mental hospital who tracks down an ex-lover played by Victoria Abril. She's a popular porn star with no intention to settle down so when Banderas shows up unannounced and asks for her hand in marriage she refuses. Then things get weird as the title would suggest. While far from a masterful denial of misogyny, director Pedro Almodovar's eye-popping cinematography makes the movie very pretty to look at. Plus with an NC-17 you know you're in for a lot and I mean a lot of nudity.

9. Crash (1996)
No not the 2005 Best Picture winner about racism and Michael Pena's unadulterated balling. Crash is a David Cronenberg film about a sub-culture of car crash fetishists. That's right, that's a thing. Highlights include James Spader using Rosanna Arquette's vulva shaped scar which she got from an accident that claimed her leg, fetish videos of car safety tests and a recreation of the crash that killed James Dean. Messed up? Of course, but if you're watching 50 Shade of Grey for the shock value you might as well go the full car length.

8. Belle de Jour (1967)
Of course if weird sexual behavior coupled with blood and violence isn't your thing you might want to try out Luis Bunuel's classic Belle de Jour. The movie about a bored French housewife making use of her days as a prostitute has a lot to offer to the 50 Shades crowd. It has sado-masochistic flights of fancy, a beautiful lead in Catherine Deneuve and best of all a dollop of Catholic guilt. Let's face it, sado-masochism wouldn't be as interesting if not for the Roman Catholic Church.

7. The Night Porter (1974)
Of course couples dressing up as priests and nuns isn't as notoriously linked to S&M as much as Nazis. Because no one ever said you should have good taste in the bedroom. So if feeling up a swastika while your lips quiver is your thing then check out The Night Porter. It's a love story of sorts about an ex-concentration camp officer who sexually tortured a beautiful Jewish girl in WWII. Now years later he lives a secret, unassuming life until he comes across her again and they reignite their masochistic affair.

6. Tokyo Decadence (1992)
Okay thus far we've been delving into some unsavory territory as far as the psychology of sexual dysfunction. My guess is if you want to see 50 Shade of Grey you're probably not a psychology major. In Tokyo Decadence we follow an unhappy prostitute who acts out elaborate scenarios for her Johns most involving S&M and humiliation. Titillating and very aware of its target audience, Tokyo Decadence is also visually pleasant to watch, if a little crude.

5. Private Parts (1972)
Director Paul Bartel has made a name for himself exploring the sexual mores of the 70's and 80's. Following his explosively subversive short film Naughty Nurse (1969) came the equally shocking Private Parts. The movie follows a young naive girl (Ayn Ruymen) who takes refuge in her aunt's dilapidated hotel. While there she becomes fascinated with it's odd occupants including a perverted priest and a reclusive photographer. A sordid coming-of-age tale like nothing you've ever seen to be sure.

4. Basic Instinct (1992)
Ah yes, the infamous Basic Instinct. Maybe a little dated by today's standards but let's not forget how salacious the movie was when it premiered. A mix of film noir tropes, liberal amounts of nudity and yes, bondage make Basic Instinct arguably the second closest in spirit to 50 Shade of Grey. Try very hard to avoid the sequel though. Yeesh!

3. Sex, Lies and Videotape (1989)
Less of a bondage-centered love story than a psychologically perverse exploration of middle-class emptiness, Sex, Lies and Videotape, more so than most movies of the time, fostered the American Independent Cinema movement of the 1990's. It's bold, its character-driven and very sexy, yet still manages to be bittersweet. Again James Spader makes an appearance on this list which makes me wonder about his sex life.

2. Nymphomaniac Vol. 1-2 (2012-2013)
Lars von Trier's controversial pair of films center on the life and times of a self-diagnosed nymphomaniac. The less I say about it the better but let's just say there's a complex tapestry of emotions and lots of unbridled sexual exploration. Plus there's Shia LeBeouf's wang. If that's a draw for the ladies then so be it.

1. Secretary (2002)
James Spader again! This time paired with Maggie Gyllenhaal who plays a submissive secretary to a demanding lawyer. It's an unconventional love story which mirrors almost perfectly with 50 Shades of Grey only this time the characters are three-dimensional, the acting is sensational and the build-up palpable. In my humble opinion Secretary should be the breakaway success. Secretary should be the representative of S&M relationships to the public, Secretary should be seen by everyone dammit!

Jupiter Ascending

Year: 2015
Genre: Sci-Fi/Space Adventure
Director: Andy & Lana Wachowski
Stars: Mila Kunis, Channing Tatum, Eddie Redmayne, Sean Bean, Douglas Booth, Tuppence Middleton

On the one hand Jupiter Ascending is a compendium of sci-fi tropes and influences. The energy is palpable, the visuals when not jarringly all over the place make for something to watch and the acting...well they tried. On the other hand Jupiter Ascending is such a cobbled mess of a movie that the general movie watching public might just as well take a rain check. Seriously, take a hike this movie is not for you.

This movie is for royalty only.

Jupiter Ascending involves an unnecessarily complicated plot which brings to mind the worst parts of 1984's Dune. There's palace intrigue involving the house of Abrasax, a family of genocidal ancient aliens who's three siblings want ownership of planet Earth. There's a hitch in their plans however and that hitch is a singularly disinterested Mila Kunis, an Earthling and housekeeper who can't help wearing makeup to look good for the toilets she cleans. To top it off she's protected by a man-wolf named Caine (Channing Tatum) who skates around in gravity cancelling moon boots. I think that bears repeating...a man-wolf who skates around in gravity cancelling moon boots. Somewhere out there the ghost of Starlight Express is cackling maniacally.

Today the train depot...tomorrow the world!

The Wachowski siblings have a penchant for front-loading their films with many complex themes and ideas and flashes of visual flare sometimes resulting in brilliance like The Matrix (1999) and the criminally underrated Cloud Atlas (2012). More often than not however their films suffer from philosophical and visual overload a la The Matrix sequels (2003) and Speed Racer (2008). Jupiter Ascending not only falls in the later category I would agree with the consensus that this movie is probably the worst they've made.

Coming in with the proper mindset however you may find something to like if not love about Jupiter Ascending. To be sure it may be the best misfire of the 2010's. Say what you will about the Wachowski's later career but when they do something they do it big. This is movie so spectacularly over the top that you just can't help but giggle while choking on Milkduds. Lo in generations to come people may have Jupiter Ascending parties much like they do Troll 2 (1990) and Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo (1984) parties (okay there are no Boogaloo parties but dammit there should be). To the unencumbered this movie is a fevered dream; a stream of consciousness tale that shoe-horns every sci-fi trope you can think of.

Whether on accidental or on purpose, here's my haul from the sci-fi (and other) Easter egg hunt that is Jupiter Ascending (spoilers):

• The cloak and dagger stuff involving the Abrasax and the mysterious crystals has Dune (1982) written all over it.
• Many spaceships have a Romulan/Alien (1979) vibe to them.
• The completely unnecessary bureaucracy sequence is brought to you by Brazil (1985) complete with a Terry Gilliam cameo.
• The three quarreling siblings are reminiscent of Dostoevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov."
• An android has a similar name to that of one in Demolition Man (1993).
• The mining base on Jupiter is reminiscent of  Blade Runner
  
  (1982) and by extension Metropolis (1927).
• By virtue of Sean Bean being in this movie he brings to mind everything he's been in including Lord of the Rings (2001-2003) and Equilibrium (2002).
• Aliens possess mind-erasers a la Men in Black (1997).
• Genetic mutations which are mixes of various animals and humans: "The Island of Dr. Moreau"
• Tuppence Middleton climbing out of a pool all slinky-like: Beowulf (2007)
  
• Eddie Redmayne's incredibly campy performance as the villain; there are so many in mind but I think John Carradine's Billy the Kid Vs. Dracula (1966) comes closest.
• The moon boots can be linked to Andrew Lloyd Webber's "Starlight Express" but most of the time I was thinking of Napoleon Dynamite (2004).
• Dragons...no reference here I just want you to know there be talking dragons in this movie.
  
• A seemingly ordinary hero thrust into a battle of good and evil? Star Wars (1977).
• Eugenic-y vibe brought to you by Gattaca (1997).
• Caine able to survive hanging on to a spaceship in the vacuum of space while at warp speed? WALL-E (2008).
• Caine being jettisoned into space and impossibly saved at the last minute..."Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy."
• Weird incestuous relationship you realize only when you think about it for a little; Star Wars again.
• Dude marrying his mother: "Oedipus Rex" anyone?
• Flash Gordon (1980)...that's all I have to say.

Now go forth! Find more Easter eggs if you dare. I will be here pausing Jupiter Ascending frame by frame to pin-point the exact moment the Wachowski siblings realized they dug themselves into the critical and financial hole too deep to get out of.

You'll find this in said hole.

Final Grade: C-

Essentials: Taxi Driver

Year: 1976
Genre: Psychological Drama
Director: Martin Scorsese
Stars: Robert De Niro, Jodie Foster, Cybill Shepherd, Peter Boyle, Albert Brooks, Harvey Keitel
Production: Columbia Pictures

Movies are meant to entertain right? The primary focus of a movie should be to distract right? If you sincerely believe that stay as far away from Taxi Driver (1976) as you possibly can. It's not that Taxi Driver is boring, far from it. It's that it doesn't sugarcoat or enthrall its audience with flashy special-effects or a twisty-turny tale. It's a movie about being; specifically a movie about being the darkest most menacing version of yourself. It's a movie that forces you to confront and battle your innermost demons and you may not like who you are by the end of it.



So tell me, have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Travis Bickle (Robert De Niro) is a Vietnam veteran looking for a job. After a short interview he's given the graveyard shift at a Taxi company thus exhausting the small, slim cords that tether him to the faulty structures of the human condition. He meets an underage prostitute (Jodie Foster) an aspiring Presidential Candidate (Leonard Harris), a homicidal cuckold (the director himself) among a menagerie of different characters all peeling away at his inner psyche. That is when he isn't doing that to himself in his isolated apartment.

When first watching Taxi Driver I watched it on the 14" screen of my old college TV set. I lived alone in a basement apartment next to the University and I worked nights as a University Police helper of sorts. I had no girlfriend and angry because of it. I had a handful of friends who I was "too busy for" and parents I still resented because I was still technically a teenager. I almost wept watching Taxi Driver because I felt Bickle's isolation. I automatically sympathized with the character on a most intimate level...then the third act of the film started.

A progression of events turn Bickle from a well-meaning if socially inept loner into a monster of sorts. Everything became a blur of violence and reactionary machismo. I no longer knew him. I no longer knew myself. He was a funhouse mirror of who I could possibly become. It was downright scary.

Like crazy scary...

Director Martin Scorsese eases the audience into his grimy nocturnal New York City by first showcasing the alternatives; the moral compasses of fellow cab driver Wizard (Peter Boyle) and Betsy (Cybill Shepherd) a campaign worker who Travis fancies. Wizard shows concern for Travis but every time he attempts to connect Travis bristles. Betsy is uneasy around Travis and ultimately his attempts to woe her fall embarrassingly flat, further pushing him into isolation and the hellish cityscape. His last solace is Jodie Foster, a runaway and prostitute who is being taken advantage of by her pimp Sport (Harvey Keitel). His attempt to redeem himself through her becomes the violent and ultimately selfish conclusion to his sordid tale.

Also had PTSD

There is a popular film theory that Bickle suffered from PTSD which while probably true I feel takes away from the movie's universal impact. I am a larger fan of Slavoj Zizek's analysis where he claims Taxi Driver is a loose remake of The Searchers (1956). In both a cynical anti-hero and veteran attempts to save a young woman from what he doesn't really understand. When "successful" they are unable to return to the life they had. Like a fallen angel Travis, like Ethan in The Searchers is still alone and unsatisfied.

When I think of the hatemongers of the KKK or the misogynistic voices of the "Men's Rights Movement" I think of Travis Bickle and by extension my college-aged self. All want to accomplish what they feel are worthwhile goals but do so as reactionaries. Some have been known to be borderline violent and all see through a lens of selfishness. Thankfully I grew out of that stage in my life and while I can't 100% pin that maturity on Taxi Driver I can say that Taxi Driver is an uncomfortable watch that made me a slightly better person.

Final Grade: A

Soul Plane

Year: 2004
Genre: Comedy/Gross-Out Comedy
Directed: Jessy Terrero
Stars: Kevin Hart, Snoop Dogg, Method Man, K.D. Aubert, Tom Arnold, Mo'Nique
Production: MGM

Soul Plane (2004) was one of those films recommended to me by a friend, meant entirely as a gentle ribbing at my expense. The idea is I sit through it, write a scathing review and everyone gets a good hardy-har. Yet another hour and a half of my life gone in the vain hope of watching a arbitrary aggregation of films to consider myself a true filmophile. How much longer do I have to suffer before I’m the authority on movies within my own sphere of influence? First off there is no finite aggregation that will accomplish such nebulous goals. Secondly watching Soul Plane isn’t exactly suffering. Let me explain.

Sadly not in this movie

Kevin Hart plays the part of Nashawn an aspiring entrepreneur who after a terrible flying experience decides to start his own airline. On his plane’s maiden voyage however things don’t go according to plan thanks largely to a glut of eccentric passengers and the pot smoking Captain of ceremonies Mack (Snoop Dogg). Can the newly minted N.W.A. Airline make a safe trip from Los Angeles to New York and more importantly can this crude and blatant rip-off make it into the audience’s hearts and minds.

I don’t think I’m giving much away by saying yes, by-the-skin-on-their-teeth, just barely yes to both questions. Instead of outrageous parody anchored by puns, visual gags and innuendo Soul Plane proudly wears its colors as a raunchy, dirty and stereotype filled send up to the mile-high club. Even when the jokes were as stale as a rejected In Living Color (1990-1994) skit I couldn’t help but crack a smile or two. I hate to admit it but Soul Plane should be what Aaron Seltzer and Jason Friedberg should aim for (largely because they might actually achieve this D+ standard of excellence if only they actually tried).

Is this seriously your A Game?

What makes Soul Plane palpable to put it simply is its energy. Much like its largest influence Airplane! (1980) every joke pops out of the wormwood in fast progression so for every groaner there are just as many chuckle-worthy moments even if every chuckle is coaxed like sentimentality is forced out of an Adam Sandler movie. Additionally the movie has some actual thoughts when it comes to black culture, air travel, family and love; not always good or well-established thoughts but enough nuggets of cogency to warrant pause.

This ball has no home...Cry bitches CRY!

There is also something to be said about the established theme of entrepreneurship. Nashawn bravely and knowingly accepts the risk of owning and operating a business. A business which for four hours is responsible for the lives of a plane-full of people. In real life the decisions he makes would make him criminally negligent but in the world of Soul Plane he’s freakin’ Andrew Carnegie. It’s not quite clear why he wants to accept such responsibility (fame, money, attention) though in a near-gushy moment he admits his fears but affirms what his mother always told him, he needs to try.

My theory, he does it for the nookie.

I’ve become increasingly aware that in today’s franchise-laden movie-scape the themes of today have been boiled down to Good vs. Evil and Evil=destroy the planet. So despite its myriad of hack-job japes, lazy stereotyping and low-hanging-fruit crudity, Soul Plane manages to be, at least partially, about a man looking to be successful by starting a business, being true to his family and owning up to his mistakes. Not a bad message for a movie who un-apologetically crams a poop joke in the first five minutes.

Post-script warning: This movie co-stars Tom Arnold as the only semi-normal white perspective in the entire movie so if that isn’t you particular cup-o’-latte then don’t even bother.

Final Grade: D-

The Invention of Lying

Year: (2009)
Genre: Comedy/Satire
Directed: Ricky Gervais, Matthew Robinson
Stars: Ricky Gervais, Jennifer Garner, Louis C.K., Jonah Hill, Rob Lowe
Production: Warner Bros.

Imagine a world where no one had the ability to lie. Everyone told the truth forever and always until one day an unassuming man came up with the idea of making something not be, be. It's a concept so simple and so rich with possibilities that it's a wonder it hadn't been thought up before. With that simple concept comes a swirl of ideas ranging from how people perceive their world and their relationships to how ideas like religion and advertising came to being.

Sadly The Invention of Lying (2009) does not take advantage of its amazing premise. Instead of pushing the boundaries by dipping it in absurdity and taking deadly aim at its possible victims it only grazes the target and binds the story in a formulaic romance while trying desperately to remain realistic. Our amiable lead Ricky Gervais tries so hard to be just that, amiable. A bad move which makes me miss the misanthropic dentist of Ghost Town (2008) and the clever ascorbic standup he's famous for. Cleverly portrayed characters and smile-inducing cameos are pushed to the side to give the romance breathing room and the satire while occasionally inspired cannot overcome the clichés of the movie's second and third act.

The film starts with a down-on-his-luck writer (Gervais) who has called in a favor from a friend. He's on a date with Anna (Jennifer Garner) a woman way out of his league as said and understood by her, himself and the waiter of the restaurant. A day later Gervais is fired from his job at Lecture Films (a studio that makes documentaries of sorts) and is behind on rent. While at the bank retrieving the remainder of his cash he comes up with an idea. What if he tells the bank teller he has more in his account than he does. Thus he begins a web of lies that changes his life and spirals into a religious movement complete with him writing all the information he "knows" about "the man in the sky" on the back of pizza boxes.

Again, on paper this idea is too good to not have happened until now. Even when the movie swerves into spiritual territory where Hollywood oft-not go, it mines its high-concept with wit and insight to spare. Then we're stapled back into the perfunctory romance. Unlike most comedies where it's tacked on, here its the center of the story. A little less Life of Brian (1979) and a little more 27 Dresses (2008).

And what of the religious/spiritual undertones? Religion, the afterlife and God are, in the film, fictional but serve all-important functions that benefits the society of Invention of Lying. An afterlife gives a cold and confusing universe meaning the movie posits. While the human race has made progress in understanding the evident truths of natural laws and has made great strides in science there's still the nagging question of where we go when we die. Therefore the characters naturally seek comfort in things that require an amount of faith even if that faith is limited to whether one man is telling the truth or not.

What we really want out of life

The second all-important function of religion and the one which gets the most attention is it gives non-alphas the chance to live and possibly enter the gene pool. in other words The Invention of Lying makes a valiant effort to explore Patton Oswalt's sky-cake argument. The second "purpose" is enough to give a sane person pause. The world of Invention of Lying has a very uncomfortable eugenic-y vibe. Jonah Hill and Louis C.K. play with the notion of killing themselves and/or enter extended periods of self-loathing largely because their genes just aren't palpable to attractive women. Garner's character while goodly enough to go out with Gervais in the first place repeatedly mentions or is coaxed into believing his genes are inferior saying "I don't want fat kids with snub noses." You mean to say if we always told the truth we'd never take personality, talents/abilities or personal history into account when it comes to relationships? And if we did (which I believe we would) does that make Garner's character worth all this grief?

You're shitting me!

Evolution deniers and theological conspiracy theorists like to link Progressive/secularist/humanist/scientific thought with some kind of weird fascistic breeding-cult endgame. If evolution is a thing and religion is made up then we should naturally weed out "inferior" genes so human dominance of the natural world would continue right? Plus is not like there's some all-knowing moral guide who can stop or punish us for doing just that. Yeah, let's please all agree that notion is a disgusting and offensive thought. Yet The Invention of Lying seems to give those idiots ammo to call those on the other side of the cultural divide fascist. After all the love story in the film is ultimately reduced to a cost-benefit analysis much of which revolves around (drumroll) genetics.

And now I'll get off my soapbox and stop reading way into the motivations of this movie and of the American religious-right. Even if you get none of what I just expanded on from this movie, the fact remains that The Invention of Lying doesn't take full advantage of its premise and sadly surrenders to the conventions of romantic comedies everywhere. It pulls its punches when it comes to its most controversial bits and ultimately it feels like a flat compromise with small gleeful moments of inspiration.

Final Grade: D+